QuoteObihai is excited to announce official support for Google Voice. With a Google Voice account and a companion OBi device you can make and receive VoIP calls on a regular telephone. To get started, just login to the OBiTALK website, add your OBi device and select Google Voice as your service. You'll then confirm your account with Google, and within minutes, you will be making and receiving calls from the comfort and convenience of your home phone. "With a Google Voice account configured on an OBi device, users will not only get all the great collaboration tools and app integration with Google Voice, they will also be able to enjoy many premium calling features, free calling within the U.S. and Canada and super-low cost international calling – all from the comfort of their home phone," said Jan Fandrianto, President and CEO of Obihai.
http://blog.obihai.com/2014/09/google-voice-and-obihai-update.html?m=1 (http://blog.obihai.com/2014/09/google-voice-and-obihai-update.html?m=1)
I also saw this posted on slickdeals.net, really a good news!
Official Support confirmed by Google Vice President of Engineering: https://plus.google.com/+CheeChew/posts/DRi3GxJ5hWK
Very annoying to have scrambled to find and pay for a new provider earlier in the year to now find out that it was never going away. Geez.
Just curious what does official support mean? I know it means our Obi devices will keep working with Google Voice, but just curious what's happening behind the scenes: Google is officially endorsing the Obi devices and will keep XMPP running? Or Obi devices are/will be upgraded to work with the new Hangouts protocol? My Obi doesn't seem to be asking for a firmware update.
A win for the procrastinators!
I'm wondering, will I need to re-configure my google voice account in my obi, or can I leave the configuration (which has been untouched for probably a couple of years) as is? I don't see a firmware update either.
Quote from: C6silver on September 11, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
Very annoying to have scrambled to find and pay for a new provider earlier in the year to now find out that it was never going away. Geez.
From all the information that is publically available, Obihai (and other solution providers) were telling the truth, in that Google had informed them (and the dog, and the world) of the intent to end the ability for them to be able to route calls via GV. Things (and schedules) changed. But until those changes were finalized, it still could have gone differently. Note that for some, a VoIP provider will be a better choice than GV, even if it may not be for you. I use both (GV and a VoIP provider), and each has demonstrated advantages in certain cases. Options are good. I am glad to see I will have the option to continue to use GV.
Quote from: rocketben on September 11, 2014, 01:11:53 PM
A win for the procrastinators!
I'm wondering, will I need to re-configure my google voice account in my obi, or can I leave the configuration (which has been untouched for probably a couple of years) as is? I don't see a firmware update either.
Right now, if you try to add a new GV SP (or change your GV password) via the Obitalk portal you are apparently forced to do a firmware upgrade to utilize the new oauth authentication mechanism. But there is nothing forcing you to do anything right now. It is my *guess* (and only a guess) that at some point all GV users that have not already done so will be forced to re-authenticate their GV account via the portal to force it to utilize oauth. And that will require a firmware upgrade. As long as you use the obitalk portal, it is mostly auto-magical (it is not like starting from scratch). And, I expect, there will continue to be additional firmware updates with "various bug fixes" in the release notes.
Does this mean we'll see (or already supports?) HD Voice with Google Voice on the OBi1000-series?
Quote from: nlurker on September 11, 2014, 12:39:50 PM
Official Support confirmed by Google Vice President of Engineering: https://plus.google.com/+CheeChew/posts/DRi3GxJ5hWK
Now, that's impressive. I'm more impressed that Google now supports OBi than I am with Obihai's announcement.
I'll have to consider at renewal if I want to stay with the premium ITSP I signed up with in January in response to the announced end date of GV or just go back to using only GV, but without the number I ported out from GV in January to the premium service. Having to change all my contacts over to my GV number will be a pain, but free is why I started with OBi about three years ago. I suspect a lot of the services will start shedding subscribers next year.
I just add back GV into my second line. That trigger a firmware update (there wasn't any prompt for accepting the update or not) After the firmware update and a few minutes, I can add the GV account. The process is different as it is actually done through Google 's and authorize the connection of the device with your GV account. So there is not password store inside Obihai. I haven't really tried the line yet as I was done everything remotely through obinet
Quote from: RFC3261 on September 11, 2014, 01:13:49 PM
From all the information that is publically available, Obihai (and other solution providers) were telling the truth, in that Google had informed them (and the dog, and the world) of the intent to end the ability for them to be able to route calls via GV. Things (and schedules) changed. But until those changes were finalized, it still could have gone differently. Note that for some, a VoIP provider will be a better choice than GV, even if it may not be for you. I use both (GV and a VoIP provider), and each has demonstrated advantages in certain cases. Options are good. I am glad to see I will have the option to continue to use GV.
I wasn't inferring that they weren't. In fact I saw the release from Google themselves so certainly there was no reason for anyone to not believe they were pulling the plug. However, there was never any indication I saw from Google that this was not anything but a 100% firm decision. They were very clear and even provided a specific date. I am certainly glad they reversed course and wonder what the reason for the change of heart was. I just wish they came to that decision before I spent a bunch of time and money to find and setup a new provider.
Quote from: ceg3 on September 11, 2014, 04:56:38 PM
I suspect a lot of the services will start shedding subscribers next year.
100% agree. They should also be thanking Google profusely for the opportunity to score so many deals for the year they got.
Quote from: C6silver on September 11, 2014, 04:58:51 PM
I wasn't inferring that they weren't. In fact I saw the release from Google themselves so certainly there was no reason for anyone to not believe they were pulling the plug. However, there was never any indication I saw from Google that this was not anything but a 100% firm decision. They were very clear and even provided a specific date. I am certainly glad they reversed course and wonder what the reason for the change of heart was. I just wish they came to that decision before I spent a bunch of time and money to find and setup a new provider.
There is a lesson to be learned here and that is things change quickly in the telecommunications industry, especially with all the corporate buyouts, mergers and restructuring. It's best not to have all your eggs in one basket and to work out different scenarios in advance depending on what actually happens.
I've had Google Voice as my primary provider since I bought my OBI110 three years ago, but have pay-as-you-go accounts with both voip.ms and Callcentric, the latter of whom provides free inbound calls to a free DID number (or at least did when I signed up). My worst case scenario was to use Callcentric for inbound calls and both voip.ms and Callcentric for outbound calls. Most people want a fixed cost for unlimited inbound and outbound, but I've found that's not the most cost effective option, especially as a fallback strategy.
Another benefit of having accounts with multiple VoIP providers is that they both work quite well with Android's integrated Internet calling, so I have backup for Google Voice over LTE there as well.
The bottom line is that it is always best to have a plan, preferably with alternatives, worked out in advance of when you need it. Even though it now looks like Google Voice will be supported with the Obihai devices for the foreseeable future there is no guarantee that it will stay free.
Quote from: RFC3261 on September 11, 2014, 01:13:49 PM
Quote from: C6silver on September 11, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
Very annoying to have scrambled to find and pay for a new provider earlier in the year to now find out that it was never going away. Geez.
From all the information that is publically available, Obihai (and other solution providers) were telling the truth, in that Google had informed them (and the dog, and the world) of the intent to end the ability for them to be able to route calls via GV. Things (and schedules) changed. But until those changes were finalized, it still could have gone differently. Note that for some, a VoIP provider will be a better choice than GV, even if it may not be for you. I use both (GV and a VoIP provider), and each has demonstrated advantages in certain cases. Options are good. I am glad to see I will have the option to continue to use GV.
Very well said.
This stuff was all worked out
after Obihai was on the GV "death row clock". When Google took its position with the third parties, Obihai had to scramble to come up with a survival strategy, as there was no indication that any alternative could be worked out to continue GV support. Obihai wasn't trying to con anyone; they were doing the right thing for their company and their customers by encouraging users to seek out alternative providers. It's really an example of "don't be evil", that Google recognized the opportunity to help solve the issue, and so now we have a technically sound, more secure solution. Having Chee Chew, VP of engineering at Google, openly comment on the solution should convince the conspiracy theorists that this was a real threat, that has now been worked out to everyone's benefit.
Google Voice is, by no means, perfect, and having another ITSP as a backup or alternative service provider is an ideal approach. Like RFC3261 said, options are good.
A question for those that have updated.
QuoteWhat's more, OBi users get premium features like Caller ID, telemarketer (spam) call blocking, call waiting, 3-way calling, and voicemail that acts like email – including voice message alerts by text and email with speech to text transcription.
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
A question for those that have updated.
QuoteWhat's more, OBi users get premium features like Caller ID, telemarketer (spam) call blocking, call waiting, 3-way calling, and voicemail that acts like email – including voice message alerts by text and email with speech to text transcription.
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
Yep, I have 4 GV lines set up on two OBi110's. Incoming & outgoing CID's have worked very well with the 2 cordless DECT 6.0 phones connected to the OBi110's.
Quote from: LeoKing on September 11, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
A question for those that have updated.
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
Yep, I have 4 GV lines set up on two OBi110's. Incoming & outgoing CID's have worked very well with the 2 cordless DECT 6.0 phones connected to the OBi110's.
What doesn't always work well is the hand-off between Google Voice (GV) and VoIP providers that are routed calls via GV. I've opened support tickets with Callcentric on this issue and they claim the CID data and flags they receive from GV are not always valid, and that may be the fault of the networks that Google uses to forward those calls. I've never had a problem with the CID information passed through GV to T-Mobile or Sprint, but Google may have direct trunks to those carriers.
Bottom line is that CID works fine for GV connections via Google Talk (Obihai's primary method), but there may be issues forwarding to other providers via GV and getting the correct information from them at the Obihai device.
I've never had a problem with the CID info passed through GV to TMo, AT&T, Sprint & Verizon either. Those are the mobile carriers my family members are using.
CID only or Cnam as well?
Quote from: LeoKing on September 11, 2014, 07:00:18 PM
I've never had a problem with the CID info passed through GV to TMo, AT&T, Sprint & Verizon either. Those are the mobile carriers my family members are using.
Yes, as mentioned previously, it seems to be a problem with the ITSP (VoIP) providers and not the cellular carriers. IMO it would be of mutual benefit to those providers and Google (as well as their users) to establish direct connections for call forwarding, but there may be some regulatory or business reason(s) why that hasn't happened yet.
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
If you're asking about CNAM then no, that's still not available. Callcentric is the only way I know to get that short of a PBX.
Quote from: Taoman on September 11, 2014, 07:07:48 PM
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
If you're asking about CNAM then no, that's still not available. Callcentric is the only way I know to get that short of a PBX.
And the CNAM information won't be reliable from the ITSP if the CID is not transferred correctly from GV. I believe we are still talking about the interface between Google Voice and an Obihai device, even if it comes via an ITSP.
Also, voip.ms supports CNAM lookup for incoming calls (http://wiki.voip.ms/article/Caller_ID), and IIRC does that without an additional charge.
Correction: voip.ms now charges 0.8 cents per CNAM lookup (http://wiki.voip.ms/article/Extra_Services_Costs) for incoming calls, but it's an option that can be set on/off per DID.
Quote from: ramjet73 on September 11, 2014, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: Taoman on September 11, 2014, 07:07:48 PM
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
If you're asking about CNAM then no, that's still not available. Callcentric is the only way I know to get that short of a PBX.
And the CNAM information won't be reliable from the ITSP if the CID is not transferred correctly from GV. I believe we are still talking about the interface between Google Voice and an Obihai device, even if it comes via an ITSP.
Also, voip.ms supports CNAM lookup for incoming calls (http://wiki.voip.ms/article/Caller_ID), and IIRC does that without an additional charge.
Correction: voip.ms now charges 0.8 cents per CNAM lookup (http://wiki.voip.ms/article/Extra_Services_Costs) for incoming calls, but it's an option that can be set on/off per DID.
If you care about or need CNAM, I suggest using a Callcentric DID number as your GV forwarding destination. It isn't perfect, and they send a lot of not-so-helpful "Los Angeles, CA" results for example, but it does work.
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 11, 2014, 09:31:07 PM
If you care about or need CNAM, I suggest using a Callcentric DID number as your GV forwarding destination. It isn't perfect, and they send a lot of not-so-helpful "Los Angeles, CA" results for example, but it does work.
If found this FAQ about CNAM (http://www.callcentric.com/faq/31/309) on the Callcentric website and apparently they only officially support the inbound look-up for their paid services. I mention that because I know that many Callcentric users take advantage of the free DID with free inbound calls service.
My understanding is that the CNAM information can optionally be passed from the source, in which case they would pass that through as is, or else will do a look-up in a local phone book that is maintained by the user, and if not found there will do an external database look-up. The city and state/province of the area code and prefix is the final result if the phone number in the caller ID is not found by the external database search.
However, my experience with Callcentric is that if they don't get a valid CID from Google Voice then "Private caller" gets displayed.
Since a CNAM lookup to the external databases (http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/CNAM) costs the provider it's not unreasonable for them to charge a fee for the service or bundle it with their paid services.
Question... I have Obi100 with GV, I never stopped using it. I noticed that I still can send and receive phone calls even after it was supposed to not work. Now the officially supported message comes out with a tutorial on how to use it. This tutorial talks about creating an account with Obihai and managing your device through their portal.
Is this truly necessary under the new "officially supported" continuation of service? I'm thinking the answer is no since my system seems to still be up based on my original configs.
My assumption is that the portal is just an aide for the less tech savvy folks, and that it is not really required. Just looking for confirmation on that.
By the way, I had Ooma before I found Obi100, and Ooma is by far less superior in service and quality. I'm hooked on Obihai.
Quote from: ramjet73 on September 11, 2014, 09:59:21 PM
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 11, 2014, 09:31:07 PM
If you care about or need CNAM, I suggest using a Callcentric DID number as your GV forwarding destination. It isn't perfect, and they send a lot of not-so-helpful "Los Angeles, CA" results for example, but it does work.
If found this FAQ about CNAM (http://www.callcentric.com/faq/31/309) on the Callcentric website and apparently they only officially support the inbound look-up for their paid services. I mention that because I know that many Callcentric users take advantage of the free DID with free inbound calls service.
That's interesting, because I have two paid CC DIDs and a free NY State DID. Until the past couple of weeks ago the free DID, which is my GV forwarding number, was passing CNAM just fine. It has occasionally been sending "UNKNOWN" recently, but I haven't taken the time to do a definitive test. I just now called it directly (not through GV) and it did send CNAM. Perhaps they changed their policy recently (and maybe just "grandfathered in" my old number). As Archie Bunker used to say, I am not going to "slug a gift horse in the mouth."
Limiting it to their paid DIDs seems reasonable to me (as you pointed out, there's a cost to providing CNAM). In any case, a paid CC DID is so cheap, if CNAM is important to the user, then it's a good option.
Quote from: McKayCR on September 11, 2014, 10:11:27 PM
Question... I have Obi100 with GV, I never stopped using it. I noticed that I still can send and receive phone calls even after it was supposed to not work. Now the officially supported message comes out with a tutorial on how to use it. This tutorial talks about creating an account with Obihai and managing your device through their portal.
Is this truly necessary under the new "officially supported" continuation of service? I'm thinking the answer is no since my system seems to still be up based on my original configs.
My assumption is that the portal is just an aide for the less tech savvy folks, and that it is not really required. Just looking for confirmation on that.
By the way, I had Ooma before I found Obi100, and Ooma is by far less superior in service and quality. I'm hooked on Obihai.
Yes, you need to do the GV configuration via the portal. The portal is involved in the Google OAUTH secure token exchange process. There are some threads from a couple weeks ago about how to back up and restore your device's local configuration if you wish to continue using the local web browser GUI for other tasks.
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 11, 2014, 10:17:01 PM
That's interesting, because I have two paid CC DIDs and a free NY State DID. Until the past couple of weeks ago the free DID, which is my GV forwarding number, was passing CNAM just fine. It has occasionally been sending "UNKNOWN" recently, but I haven't taken the time to do a definitive test. I just now called it directly (not through GV) and it did send CNAM. Perhaps they changed their policy recently (and maybe just "grandfathered in" my old number). As Archie Bunker used to say, I am not going to "slug a gift horse in the mouth."
I'm not sure when "UNKNOWN" is displayed but here is the explanation I got from a Callcentric tech about why I am getting "Private caller" (asterisks represent numbers masked for security reasons):
Quote
To further clarify the initial questions, Telecom Providers use multiple Underlying Carriers to complete the calls. These Underlying Carriers are the direct Interconnects. Although Google isn't exactly a true Telecom Provider, they use Underlying Carriers to complete the calls as well.
The Underlying Carriers provide routes at different rates. We suspect that one of Google Voice's Underlying Carrier is using a cheaper route to complete calls to the Telengy Network(Phone Number Provider for 1631*******). We say this because some Underlying carriers do modify or strip the Caller ID.
We see that the last call that came in was Anonymous. Here is a snippet from the Call INVITE Packet for that particular call:
To: 1631*******<sip:1631*******@xx.xx.xx.xx>
From: <sip:1949*******@xx.xx.xx.xx>;tag=361*******-34294
Remote-Party-Id: <sip:9493********@xx.xx.xx.xx;user=phone>;party=calling;id-type=subscriber;privacy=uri;screen=yes
Please observe the "Privacy=uri" portion. This indicates that the call is being sent to us as ANONYMOUS and we should not pass the caller ID information for the call. As per the SIP RFC our servers are then stripping the CID information(1949xxxxxxx) when sending it to your device. This is beyond our control, Google needs to change or remove the privacy flag in order for the call to be forwarded with caller ID information.
A number of customers have tried to contact Google Voice however there has been no response from their end. You may try contacting them and if they do respond we will be happy to submit our trace logs and join the troubleshooting process.
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you
I'd love to get Google involved with this issue but don't know where to start.
Do you have any suggestions?
ramjet:
Yes, I looked into this with Google last year sometime, when it was rampant. At that time, there was some finger-pointing back and forth between Google and CC about it. I eventually got Google to deal with the issue, as described by the CC tech's note. It seems to have reappeared, although not as frequently. It's intermittent because like the CC tech said, the calls can pass through different intermediate or "transit" carriers, depending on cost algorithms. I now have a direct contact at Google who may be willing to fix it if you would like to help.
If so, I ask that you wait a couple of weeks, because there is a lot of high-priority work going on there now, with the Hangouts updates. Then, on a weekday morning, submit a post on the GV Help Forum. You can mention my forum nickname (For Bluescat:) in the title so I'll see it. We'll need at least 3-5 sample inbound calls placed to your GV number, which forward to your CC free (Telengy) DID number, and delivered missing or bogus CNAM. We'll need the date and times of the calls, the last 4 digits of your GV number, the last 4 digits of your CC DID, and the last 4 digits of the caller's number and if possible, their carrier (their telephone company). We need this data to be "fresh", i.e., that you collect the samples and post them immediately, on a weekday, because phone switch logs can get purged every 24 hours, making it impossible to troubleshoot.
If you can do that, the Google engineer can look at the transit carriers that were used for those calls, and fix the issue.
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 11, 2014, 10:48:15 PM
If you can do that, the Google engineer can look at the transit carriers that were used for those calls, and fix the issue.
Sure, I'd be happy to do that. ;)
It's on my calendar for two weeks from this coming Monday (September 29).
Thanks!
Great! Talk to you then; thanks.
Quote from: Taoman on September 11, 2014, 07:07:48 PM
Quote from: giqcass on September 11, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
Are you receiving Caller ID on your Obi connected handsets without using and extra service like Callcentric?
If you're asking about CNAM then no, that's still not available. Callcentric is the only way I know to get that short of a PBX.
Actually you are right I meant CNAM. I guess my mind was elsewhere when I read the initial post. I have been using the Callcentric trick almost from the beginning. I like it because I can use my CC address book for CNAM lookup. I manually add all my contacts there.
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 11, 2014, 06:19:44 PM
Very well said.
This stuff was all worked out after Obihai was on the GV "death row clock". When Google took its position with the third parties, Obihai had to scramble to come up with a survival strategy, as there was no indication that any alternative could be worked out to continue GV support. Obihai wasn't trying to con anyone; they were doing the right thing for their company and their customers by encouraging users to seek out alternative providers. It's really an example of "don't be evil", that Google recognized the opportunity to help solve the issue, and so now we have a technically sound, more secure solution. Having Chee Chew, VP of engineering at Google, openly comment on the solution should convince the conspiracy theorists that this was a real threat, that has now been worked out to everyone's benefit.
Google Voice is, by no means, perfect, and having another ITSP as a backup or alternative service provider is an ideal approach. Like RFC3261 said, options are good.
I have yet to see anyone blaming Obihai including myself (at least not in this thread). I clearly stated, when the initial response was incorrectly interpreted, that no one could have thought differently based on Google's openly communicated stance.
Quote from: giqcass on September 12, 2014, 12:16:40 AM
I like it because I can use my CC address book for CNAM lookup. I manually add all my contacts there.
Likewise. I really like the CC phonebook because of its CNAM override function. I much prefer to see "Dad" listed on my incoming call than "SMITH JOHN." And I especially appreciate the fact you can use the phonebook and call treatment functionality even with DIDs forwarded into CC via SIP URI. I have an IPComms DID I forward to CC via iNum. I also add all new incoming numbers into my CC phonebook.
Thats great news but I ported my number out to Anveo after OBI suggested that google voice won't be supported in May 2014.
Can OBI talk to Google and get a waiver for obi customer for porting number back to google voice?
Quote from: kommon on September 19, 2014, 09:42:30 AM
Thats great news but I ported my number out to Anveo after OBI suggested that google voice won't be supported in May 2014.
Can OBI talk to Google and get a waiver for obi customer for porting number back to google voice?
OBI didn't "suggest" that Google Voice wouldn't be supported in May they published the information from Google (http://blog.obihai.com/2013/10/important-message-about-google-voice.html) that XMPP wouldn't be supported after May 15th and offered their customers alternatives. Other third parties using Google Voice "unofficially" like the developers of GrooveIP and GVJack published similar notices.
As it turns out, Google's position on XMPP was ambiguous at best (http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2013/05/did-google-really-kill-off-all-xmppjabber-support-in-google-hangouts-it-still-seems-to-partially-work.html), as are most of their statements about future directions. However, if you read between the lines before May 15th, it made sense to position for a loss of GV on Obihai devices. How and when you did that was entirely up to you.
You can still port your number (https://support.google.com/voice/answer/1065667?hl=en) back to Google for $20 and take advantage of what is now an officially supported provider that is free for now but may not be forever. GV offers features that most other ITSP's don't and vice versa so it's still your own business decision which one is best for your needs.
Anybody have a sense that GV is better in terms of call quality since the changes?
Quote from: ceg3 on September 19, 2014, 07:48:07 PM
Anybody have a sense that GV is better in terms of call quality since the changes?
If you've noticed better GV call quality over time (in the past year or so), it is because Google has been making a large investment in improving their carrier network. They've been analyzing user reports of dropped or poor-quality calls, and they have actually implemented automation to identify repeated call failures attributed to particular partner carriers. For example, if you make or receive a call that routes via transit carrier XYZ, and it fails (the call is disconnected, or you hang up), and then immediately try again, this is noted and analyzed for possible remediation.
This has resulted in some carriers being eliminated for certain call routes, and replaced with others. There is additional work going on to further improve the telco network topology to optimize call quality, so you'll continue to see improved reliability and improved audio quality.
Excellent! That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. Really good to hear they are continually working to improve the service. Bodes well for the future. I've had my GV account as a backup, but have moved it to SP1 as I begin to consider not renewing the service I picked up last winter in response to the GV scare.
For CNAM.... Google should just integrate their Google Caller ID that's in the Android Dialer with G-Voice.
If that's something you'd like to see then use the Feedback Tool in the G-Voice app / site.
The more who request this the more likely they will add it. ;)
Your endless posts lobbying for features here and on the GV forum are getting tiresome. This isn't a petition drive, and Google won't be influenced by a talent show voting game. Features get developed based on many factors, including technical feasibility, business justification, and cost; user interest is just one factor. Believe me, a lot of engineers and product managers smarter than you are evaluating which features to include or not include in their products.
Telling people to spam Google with requests isn't going to win you any friends over there.
Well I'll take the word of the Engineers / Reps who have thanked me and told me and others to submit feedback or as you call "spamming".
I was told by an Engineer that I assume works at Google?
Quote"That the more feedback the team gets regarding a feature the better"
: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/z6pHQNc98wM (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/z6pHQNc98wM)
I also have been thanked for my constant feedback too: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/IN4FB1VBiFw (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/IN4FB1VBiFw)
They encourage anyone interested in a feature like auto switching for voip and cell calling based on network speed. To use the Feedback tool:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/9LaXNKu4AMc (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/9LaXNKu4AMc)
They seem to appreciate my suggestions as I have been told:
Quote"It's great hearing ways that the product could be improved."
:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/56NYLnfVYKM (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/56NYLnfVYKM)
I as well as everyone else was told:
Quote"Thanks for the suggestion, I will be sure to pass it on to Google as well for consideration. A great way for people to show interest in a particular feature is to use the feedback option in Hangouts so that way Google can track and see how much interest a new feature may have with users. Google is a data driven company so it really helps to support a great idea with user interest data."
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/23mywZhKCUU (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/23mywZhKCUU)
Quote"Feedback! Feedback! Feedback! YEA!"
You know these "smarter than me engineers". They did forget to add group SMS messaging into the G-Voice to Hangouts integration: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/Z3dRwsOQZZc (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/hangouts/author$3Ame/hangouts/Z3dRwsOQZZc)
A feature that has been in the Google Voice site and app since 2010. A feature that has been added to Hangouts unofficially with XVoicePlus or Cyanogenmod for quite sometime.
Yeah they are still adding features in but that's a big omission when adding G-Voice SMS support. The MMS support is cool but group messaging is important to many.
Quote from: Crow550 on September 20, 2014, 08:19:18 PM
Well I'll take the word of the Engineers who have thanked me and told me and others to submit feedback or as you call "spamming".
There is a big difference between the representatives that monitor the forum and are paid to be polite to the users that participate versus the engineers that are actually writing code and working long hours to get new features implemented. What makes you think that the people giving you positive feedback are engineers?
Quote from: Crow550 on September 20, 2014, 08:19:18 PMOh and another thing. For these "smarter than me engineers". They forgot to add group SMS messaging into the G-Voice to Hangouts integration:
You really think that Google "forgot" to add group messaging to Hangouts any more than they "forgot" to add MMS to Google Voice. If you give them that little credit I don't know why you are spending time making suggestions on their forums unless you think that is the only way they will "remember".
Quote from: ramjet73 on September 20, 2014, 09:39:12 PM
Quote from: Crow550 on September 20, 2014, 08:19:18 PM
Well I'll take the word of the Engineers who have thanked me and told me and others to submit feedback or as you call "spamming".
There is a big difference between the representatives that monitor the forum and are paid to be polite to the users that participate versus the engineers that are actually writing code and working long hours to get new features implemented. What makes you think that the people giving you positive feedback are engineers?
Quote from: Crow550 on September 20, 2014, 08:19:18 PMOh and another thing. For these "smarter than me engineers". They forgot to add group SMS messaging into the G-Voice to Hangouts integration:
You really think that Google "forgot" to add group messaging to Hangouts any more than they "forgot" to add MMS to Google Voice. If you give them that little credit I don't know why you are spending time making suggestions on their forums unless you think that is the only way they will "remember".
Well I assume some are Engineers. I could be wrong. Sorry if I am.... I will clean up my post to reflect this.
I just wanted to point out that from what people who are either reps or engineers in the Forums have told me and others that using the Feedback Tool to submit feature requests for example the G-CallerID being integrated into G-Voice would not be a form of spamming from what I gathered from the feedback from the reps / engineers in the Forums.
Like I quoted in my last post:
Quote"Thanks for the suggestion, I will be sure to pass it on to Google as well for consideration. A great way for people to show interest in a particular feature is to use the feedback option in Hangouts so that way Google can track and see how much interest a new feature may have with users. Google is a data driven company so it really helps to support a great idea with user interest data."
I guess you misread what I posted but they added MMS support with G-Voice in Hangouts. It's group SMS chat through G-Voice they forgot to add.
As for the G-voice / Hangouts Forums. I will try to keep within one or two threads over there on bugs / missing features and ideas. Instead of making a new thread each time.
They seemed to welcome it.... I was just pointing out what I was informed in those forums to show my reasonings for telling people to use the Feedback Tool to request that. It was never my intention to spam or lobby everyone.
Sorry if it came across like that. I didn't mean to come across pushy. I was just trying to help from what I was told in the Forums that if there was a feature people wanted them to look into to use the Feedback tool.
Quote from: Crow550 on September 21, 2014, 12:10:33 AM
I just wanted to point out that from what people who are either reps or engineers in the Forums have told me and others that using the Feedback Tool to submit feature requests for example the G-CallerID being integrated into G-Voice would not be a form of spamming from what I gathered from the feedback from the reps / engineers in the Forums.
Could you explain what you mean by "G-CallerID"? I'm already getting CID on most of my inbound calls from GV and CNAM is something that Google could offer but there would be a cost associated with it that Google would either need to absorb or pass back to users who might complain about the service no longer being free.
Are you aware of how CNAM (http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/CNAM) works for ITSP's that already offer it? Could you explain in a little more detail how you see Google implementing it and recovering their costs?
Sure. Android currently has a CallerID system that was introduced in 4.4. More info here: https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3459196?hl=en
Quote from: Crow550 on September 21, 2014, 12:38:31 AM
Sure. Android currently has CallerID system they introduced in 4.4. More info here: https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3459196?hl=en
That is neither CID or CNAM as defined by the telephony standards. What that represents is a form of private address book that Google will use to match the phone number (CID) with the contacts it has available in its own databases versus doing a lookup for that number in the official CNAM database that is maintained by all the service providers. The official CNAM database normally has a charge associated with adding/updating the name for a given number and that can only be done by the service provider that "owns" that number. There is also a charge for each access to the database when looking up an incoming number (CID).
If it's a Sprint number you maintain it through Sprint, Verizon through Verizon, etc. So Google could probably update the public database for numbers it assigns or ports into GV and do lookups for incoming calls from other providers and that would be CNAM but that's not what you are suggesting. With "G-CallerID" as you call it the names may or not match what is stored in the public CNAM database for that number, which would also be the case when you keep a private directory on your phone or at an ITSP, and that may or may not be a problem depending on which name you want to receive for inbound calls but it's definitely not CNAM.
If you are going to make suggestions to Google and/or discuss them in public forums it's always a good idea to get a clear understanding of what the terms you are using mean. Since Obihai's use of Google Voice is more like an ITSP than an Android phone app CNAM would be more appropriate and I don't think Google will allow access to its contact databases by third parties anyway. Technically Google could offer CNAM services but that may or may not fit with their technology and/or business plans.
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 20, 2014, 07:38:44 PM
Your endless posts lobbying for features here and on the GV forum are getting tiresome. This isn't a petition drive, and Google won't be influenced by a talent show voting game. Features get developed based on many factors, including technical feasibility, business justification, and cost; user interest is just one factor. Believe me, a lot of engineers and product managers smarter than you are evaluating which features to include or not include in their products.
Telling people to spam Google with requests isn't going to win you any friends over there.
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
Google and those moderating the GV Forums ASK for feedback from their users. Period. They do so because plenty of those "oh so smarter than you" engineers DO forget to add very simple things. Over the years I have been friends with many engineers and programmers who are absolutely terrible at relating to everyday people in normal social situations. In many ways they would rather interact with technology than other human beings. Are all who work in the tech world this way? Of course not, but plenty are. Feedback is absolutely necessary for that reason alone. Sometimes the technologically inclined forget how to communicate with the rest of the world. Feedback from Mr. Average Joe is exactly what keeps things in line. And yes, 1,000 requests do weigh more heavily than one.
To Crow550, you did nothing wrong and had nothing to apologize for. Don't allow self proclaimed forum police to brow beat you into apologizing for nothing. No matter how many forum posts they have under their little username. It means nothing and does not grant them a pass when they are overtly rude to others. Those who insist upon acting like that do so because they either have very little control over other things in their real life or the opposite, more control over others than they should ever have and feel that control should extend everywhere. It doesn't.
Quote from: genesishep on October 01, 2014, 11:14:22 AM
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
IMO the real problem is asking other users to support a campaign for an enhancement that isn't well thought out. It's one thing to throw something out on your own and another thing to ask other people to jump into the pool with you.
Do you know what he meant by "For CNAM.... Google should just integrate their Google Caller ID that's in the Android Dialer with G-Voice"? If so, please explain. I'm still not clear if his statement refers to "CNAM" for Obihai devices configured for Google Voice, all inbound and/or outbound calls from/to any Google Voice connected device (which would override the official CNAM databases) or something entirely different.
Bottom line, if you are going to ask other users to join you in requesting enhancements, make sure they are well researched and clearly explained.
Quote from: ramjet73 on October 01, 2014, 11:58:59 AM
Quote from: genesishep on October 01, 2014, 11:14:22 AM
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
IMO the real problem is asking other users to support a campaign for an enhancement that isn't well thought out. It's one thing to throw something out on your own and another thing to ask other people to jump into the pool with you.
Do you know what he meant by "For CNAM.... Google should just integrate their Google Caller ID that's in the Android Dialer with G-Voice"? If so, please explain. I'm still not clear if his statement refers to "CNAM" for Obihai devices configured for Google Voice, all inbound and/or outbound calls from/to any Google Voice connected device (which would override the official CNAM databases) or something entirely different.
Bottom line, if you are going to ask other users to join you in requesting enhancements, make sure they are well researched and clearly explained.
Exactly. Perfectly articulated. Right on.
Quote from: ramjet73 on October 01, 2014, 11:58:59 AM
Quote from: genesishep on October 01, 2014, 11:14:22 AM
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
IMO the real problem is asking other users to support a campaign for an enhancement that isn't well thought out. It's one thing to throw something out on your own and another thing to ask other people to jump into the pool with you.
Do you know what he meant by "For CNAM.... Google should just integrate their Google Caller ID that's in the Android Dialer with G-Voice"? If so, please explain. I'm still not clear if his statement refers to "CNAM" for Obihai devices configured for Google Voice, all inbound and/or outbound calls from/to any Google Voice connected device (which would override the official CNAM databases) or something entirely different.
Bottom line, if you are going to ask other users to join you in requesting enhancements, make sure they are well researched and clearly explained.
Again, nothing wrong with asking or presenting an idea on a discussion forum at ANY stage in its development. If the issue was a need to clarify their position/point/idea fine, ask for clarification. Don't attempt to dissuade, or brow beat someone for posting a topic of discussion in a DISCUSSION FORUM. Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum at all doesn't it? Where is it written that requests must be formatted and submitted in a certain manner? I've seen many discussion forums foster ideas where an original poster will suggest something and another poster will suggest an alternative idea that builds on the original. That is how communities should function, in this case, it didn't.
Its not really so difficult to conduct ourselves civilly:
Option A: Agree with poster and join/support them.
Option B: Disagree with poster and don't join/support them.
Option C: Ask for clarification if you are unsure what they are asking (in a civil, non condescending manner would be nice)...once clarification is received see options A or B.
Option D: Discuss topic why for, why against.
Option E: Ignore post entirely as it isn't of any interest to you.
I take issue with the use of the word "spam" and the idea that it is wrong for someone to suggest providing feedback to a developer is either spamming or annoying to them. Google is just a company, their engineers are just people and they are not above hearing comments from the masses. Nor should they be. And if they are? Tough, don't ask for feedback if you don't really want it.
Further, my issue isn't in whether I support or understand his request, my issue is that there is no reason to be an arse or a bully in response. That sort of behavior stifles conversation as many, especially those who are less technically inclined, would rather not speak up or ask questions for fear that someone will be a rude towards them. Most of us were taught proper manners as we grew up but simply choose to ignore them in social media.
What happened above was completely uncalled for. I read the rest of the thread, I also perused Crow550's comments on these forums as SURELY he must have been a pest to get a reaction like that for one comment in a thread. I saw nothing to warrant SteveInWA's response...and it angered me to then see him offer an apology to someone who definitely didn't deserve one. Bully's get away with behavior because society doesn't call them on it.
Quote from: SteveInWA on October 01, 2014, 04:18:30 PM
Exactly. Perfectly articulated. Right on.
Completely not the point, and totally off IMO.
Find something else to crusade about. It wasn't even your issue to begin with.
Quote from: SteveInWA on October 02, 2014, 02:15:36 PM
Find something else to crusade about. It wasn't even your issue to begin with.
Need the last word much?
@Genesishep
Check your Messages. ;)Quote from: genesishep on October 02, 2014, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: SteveInWA on October 02, 2014, 02:15:36 PM
Find something else to crusade about. It wasn't even your issue to begin with.
Need the last word much?
If that was the case then he would have responded in this thread: https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/hangouts/gsBzj2mwd2o/KqpH3etT5pEJ (https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/hangouts/gsBzj2mwd2o/KqpH3etT5pEJ)
@ramjet73 and @SteveInWANow if I'm still coming across as unclear on what I was asking then I will clarify the best I can:
All I was saying is Google seems to have their own CNAM lookup system for Android called Google Caller ID.
Since Google Voice does not do these lookups then simply put Google should merge the Google Caller ID into Google Voice itself. (Maybe this is not possible. If so then I am sorry for not knowing this. I did make a thread to ask for clarification on this: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/voice/author$3Ame/voice/ThVzUiDlQOo (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/voice/author$3Ame/voice/ThVzUiDlQOo))
How it works in Android is when a number calls and it rings into the Dialer then the Dialer uses the G-Caller ID to do a lookup.
This currently only works with your cell number being ringed to the Dialer or your G-Voice number being forwarded to the cell number when of course ringing the Android Dialer.
This does not work with the Hangouts dialer (yet) or devices like the Obihai.
So all I was saying since I was told this was Okay to do by the Engineers is to ask everyone to go submit Feedback and request to Google to add in Google Caller ID functionally into Google Voice.
Does G-Voice on the Obi even displays the name and number of your contacts when they call? I know it does on Hangouts on PC or Mobile. I believe you need to add your contacts to the phone's address book itself.
So maybe Google will add this since they are "officially supported" along with some type of Caller ID lookup. Maybe this is something they haven't thought much about yet. So clearly if they receive a lot of user feedback on it then they will be inclined to add this feature.
Hope I'm clear now.
If the current Google Caller ID can't work for Phone devices they could still offer some form of CNAM support and there is nothing wrong asking others to submit Feedback for this feature with the Feedback Tool. That's what it's for! FEEDBACK!
It should be added that Engineers do in fact chime in the forums time to time and do encourage people to submit Feedback on features they want to see.
As seen here: https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/hangouts/L_e3-LHQgWw/BEJ33sdGPGUJ (https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/hangouts/L_e3-LHQgWw/BEJ33sdGPGUJ)